How can you possibly argue the Constitutionality of something not having done so? On what do you base your opinions? Your personal bias? It certainly isn't on the founding principles.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>I am a gay man who wishes to have the right to marry another gay man who is of the age of consent and who is not related to me.If opposite sex couples have that right, then I believe that I should have that right too.

You are welcome to your opinion and I wish you well.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>I don't care how it comes about. I don't care if it comes about through a Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. I don't care if it come about by way of an amendment to the Constitution. I don't really give a damn how it comes about.

This is problem #2.

You don't give a damn about how you get your way, just that you get it. So I guess that answers my previous question? You don't really care if something is in line with the Constitution or not, you just want what you want, and if screaming it is unconstitutional not to get what you want regardless of the validity of the statement so be it.

This is why you hear people say the Constitution is being trampled by liberal progressives and activist judges.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text> It's what I want and what millions of other tax paying, law abiding, citizens of this country want.

I can just picture you stomping your feet and pounding your fist;s while saying this.

Grow up, we are a nation of laws, and once we start to ignore those laws simply to pander to personal desires we have reached anarchy.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>You can argue about the methods we use until you are blue in the face. I do not care. Your worries about the Constitution is of absolutely no concern to me.

Well, that just says it all doesn't it. You don't give a damn about the Constitution, you just want your cookie.

Seriously, how old are you? I am starting to question this idea what you have a high school diploma, let alone a MSW.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>As I have said, many people who are much smarter and more powerful than you or I are involved in this issue.

They are "smarter" than you because you have made the conscious decision to remain ignorant. You have decided NOT to educate yourself on your nation, it's founding, and it's Constitution.

And by "smarter" it simply means they are more equipped to pull the wool over your eyes, because of your ignorance.

See Problem #1.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>We will get what we want, one way or another.As Gavin Newsom said, "Whether you like it or not..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Ms0hugRkgv8XX

You my friend are far more of a danger to this country than ANY terrorist. As Lincoln said:

"All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

It is willful ignorance like yours that will bring about our demise. It will continue to bring us elected officials who promise the world rather than promising to uphold the Constitution.

As I asked before, how can you possibly know if something is Constitutional or not if you remain willfully ignorant of the document?

If you are willing to taint the Constitution to get your way while pretending you are upholding it, you deserve neither.

I see no point in discussing anything further with you. You have shown that you are not interested in actually following the law or the foundational documents of our republic. You are simply interested in stomping your feet until you get what you want, Constitution be damned. This childish attitude combined with your ignorance of the subject matter makes this a discourse which will provide neither an intellectual nor rational discussion, thus to continue would be an exercise in futility.

<quoted text>No, you live in a fantasy land cloaked as reality.As I asked before, how can you possibly know if something is Constitutional or not if you remain willfully ignorant of the document?If you are willing to taint the Constitution to get your way while pretending you are upholding it, you deserve neither.I see no point in discussing anything further with you. You have shown that you are not interested in actually following the law or the foundational documents of our republic. You are simply interested in stomping your feet until you get what you want, Constitution be damned. This childish attitude combined with your ignorance of the subject matter makes this a discourse which will provide neither an intellectual nor rational discussion, thus to continue would be an exercise in futility.

Yes, I will continue to stomp my feet until I get what I want.

When Proposition 8 passed in CA, over 10,000 people raced to San Francisco's City Hall so that we could stomp our feet in unison. We continued to stomp our feet and challenged the new policy legally and politically until it came before Judge Walker. He and the three person appellate court ruled that the proposition was--say it with me "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"!

Do you have some kind of keen insight that these people and all of their associates do not have?

My guess is that you're just another schlub with anger issues.

You get on here and try to pick fights. I'm not interested.

I state my case and my beliefs.

If you don't want to respond to them, I am happy to be ignored by the likes of you.

If you want to feel superior, then by all means do so.

This is a forum where ideas and beliefs are discussed.

If you want to run it like it's your own personal playpen, I've got news for you; it's not going to happen.

Go create your own topic. I'm sure you'll find all sorts of people who would LOVE to get into these procedural arguments with you.

Until you don the black dress and bang a gavel in a real courtroom, your opinion is worth about as much as mine.

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>-Here are the facts I state;1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?<quoted text>What remains, is your opinion and my facts.Smirk.

sheesh void of hate wrote:

<quoted text>What remains is your irrelevance and dishonesty. You've posted great loads of opinion you've claimed to be fact. Leaning on these two as proof of your "facts" is quite laughable. You will also, without doubt, stick with your schtick about being a chimera, a mutation, and a man trapped in a woman's body. All sensational lies in an effort to make yourself appear to be something you are not. Pretty sad, ain't it?

<quoted text>Yes, I will continue to stomp my feet until I get what I want.When Proposition 8 passed in CA, over 10,000 people raced to San Francisco's City Hall so that we could stomp our feet in unison. We continued to stomp our feet and challenged the new policy legally and politically until it came before Judge Walker. He and the three person appellate court ruled that the proposition was--say it with me "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"!Do you have some kind of keen insight that these people and all of their associates do not have?My guess is that you're just another schlub with anger issues.You get on here and try to pick fights. I'm not interested.I state my case and my beliefs.If you don't want to respond to them, I am happy to be ignored by the likes of you.If you want to feel superior, then by all means do so.This is a forum where ideas and beliefs are discussed.If you want to run it like it's your own personal playpen, I've got news for you; it's not going to happen.Go create your own topic. I'm sure you'll find all sorts of people who would LOVE to get into these procedural arguments with you.Until you don the black dress and bang a gavel in a real courtroom, your opinion is worth about as much as mine.

Oh, KiMareSociety evolves else we'd be forever stuck in the dark ages. There was a time in early marriage legality when the wife was not considered a person, she was part of 'chattal', belongings. If marriage is only a 'cross-cultural constraint of mating behaviour' then no couple would be allowed to marry knowing that one or both of them are infertile. Taken to the extreme reductions which you imply then you yourself would not be allowed to have married, as genetically you're not singularly male; and from a psychological point how do you justify you yourself having kids when you can not give them an entirely male role model? Marriage is gestaltian ie. it is more than the sum of its' parts. Yes it has traditionally served the function of procreation but reality (that thing you think you're so fond of) is it is more than that. Nowadays plenty of couples have children before they marry, it's quite common to have the kids at the wedding as flower bearers. Stopping gay couples from marrying is not going to stop homosexuality and neither is it going to stop them having (biological surrogates or adoption) having children; any more than it stops single people having children if they want. Think about it, you're obviously legally male or else you wouldn't have been able to marry your wife. What if with a slight differentiation you had been registered female. Assuming you married out of love, then you would be left wanting a SSM. Changing marriage to define two people instead of man and woman would avoid this problem, not only for gays/lesbians but for transgenders/intersexed too.

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>-Here are the facts I state;1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?<quoted text>What remains, is your opinion and my facts.Smirk.<quoted text>So you are saying,-Ss couples are not duplicates of one gender?-Ss couples are mutually capable of procreation?Oh, and you have medical proof of my condition?You are the sad one, and you are not void of hate.Smile.

#1 you may think you are a duplicate of every other man, but you are no duplicate of me that is for sure, I actually use my brain

#2 procreation in either intent or ability has never ever been a requirement for a marriage lincence

<quoted text>OK. I see an honest person trying to support marriage equality but shouted down cries of "off topic!" by jackasses such as yourself.What possible harm would a loving marriage of three adult consenting men cause you Jizzy? Or a marriage of two sisters?The bottom line is I support marriage equality and you do not. So climb down off your high jackass, jackass.

<quoted text>Yes, I will continue to stomp my feet until I get what I want.When Proposition 8 passed in CA, over 10,000 people raced to San Francisco's City Hall so that we could stomp our feet in unison. We continued to stomp our feet and challenged the new policy legally and politically until it came before Judge Walker. He and the three person appellate court ruled that the proposition was--say it with me "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"!

It would be an excercise in futility to debate the Constitutionality of something woth someone who self admittedly is ignorant of the subject matter.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.